UNCLASSIFIED
© Government of Canada. This document is the property of the Government of Canada. It shall not be altered,
distributed beyond its intended audience, produced, reproduced or published, in whole or in any substantial part
thereof, without the express permission of CSE.
COMMON CRITERIA
CERTIFICATION REPORT
Shavlik U.S Federal Protect Standard v9.2 Update 3
383-4-418
8 June 2017
Version 1.0
UNCLASSIFIED
FOREWORD
This certification report is an UNCLASSIFIED publication, issued under the authority of the Chief,
Communications Security Establishment (CSE). Suggestions for amendments should be forwarded through
departmental communications security channels to your Client Services Representative at CSE.
The Information Technology (IT) product identified in this certification report, and its associated certificate, has
been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility – established under the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme –
using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4, for
conformance to the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4.
This certification report, and its associated certificate, applies only to the identified version and release of the
product in its evaluated configuration. The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of
the Canadian CC Scheme, and the conclusions of the evaluation facility in the evaluation report are consistent
with the evidence adduced. This report, and its associated certificate, are not an endorsement of the IT product
by the Communications Security Establishment, or any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this
report, and its associated certificate, and no warranty for the IT product by the Communications Security
Establishment, or any other organization that recognizes or gives effect to this report, and its associated
certificate, is either expressed or implied.
If your department has identified a requirement for this certification report based on business needs and would
like more detailed information, please contact:
ITS Client Services
Telephone: (613) 991-7654
E-mail: itsclientservices@cse-cst.gc.ca
UNCLASSIFIED
OVERVIEW
The Canadian Common Criteria Scheme provides a third-party evaluation service for determining the
trustworthiness of Information Technology (IT) security products. Evaluations are performed by a commercial
Common Criteria Evaluation Facility (CCEF) under the oversight of the Certification Body, which is managed by
the Communications Security Establishment.
A CCEF is a commercial facility that has been approved by the Certification Body to perform Common Criteria
evaluations; a significant requirement for such approval is accreditation to the requirements of ISO/IEC
17025:2005, the General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories.
Accreditation is performed under the Program for the Accreditation of Laboratories - Canada (PALCAN),
administered by the Standards Council of Canada.
The CCEF that carried out this evaluation is DXC Security Testing/Certification Laboratories.
By awarding a Common Criteria certificate, the Certification Body asserts that the product complies with the
security requirements specified in the associated security target. A security target is a requirements specification
document that defines the scope of the evaluation activities. The consumer of certified IT products should
review the security target, in addition to this certification report, in order to gain an understanding of any
assumptions made during the evaluation, the IT product's intended environment, the evaluated security
functionality, and the testing and analysis conducted by the CCEF.
The certification report, certificate of product evaluation and security target are posted to the Certified Products
list (CPL) for the Canadian CC Scheme and to the Common Criteria portal (the official website of the
International Common Criteria Project).
UNCLASSIFIED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................1
1 Identification of Target of Evaluation......................................................................................................2
1.1 Common Criteria Conformance..................................................................................................................2
1.2 TOE description ..........................................................................................................................................2
1.3 TOE architecture.........................................................................................................................................3
2 Security policy .......................................................................................................................................4
3 Assumptions and Clarifications of Scope.................................................................................................5
3.1 Usage and Environmental assumptions .....................................................................................................5
4 Evaluated Configuration.........................................................................................................................6
4.1 Documentation...........................................................................................................................................6
5 Evaluation Analysis Activities .................................................................................................................7
5.1 Development..............................................................................................................................................7
5.2 Guidance Documents .................................................................................................................................7
5.3 Life-cycle Support.......................................................................................................................................7
6 Testing Activities....................................................................................................................................8
6.1 Assessment of Developer Tests..................................................................................................................8
6.2 Conduct of Testing......................................................................................................................................8
6.3 Independent Functional Testing.................................................................................................................8
6.4 Independent Penetration Testing ..............................................................................................................9
7 Results of the Evaluation......................................................................................................................10
7.1 Recommendations/Comments................................................................................................................ 10
8 Supporting Content..............................................................................................................................11
8.1 List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................................ 11
8.2 References............................................................................................................................................... 12
UNCLASSIFIED
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 TOE Architecture ....................................................................................................................................3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 TOE Identification.......................................................................................................................................2
UNCLASSIFIED
version 1.0 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Shavlik U.S Federal Protect Standard v9.2 Update 3 (hereafter referred to as the Target of Evaluation, or TOE),
from Ivanti, was the subject of this Common Criteria evaluation. A description of the TOE can be found in Section
1.2. The results of this evaluation demonstrate that TOE meets the requirements of the conformance claim
listed in Table 1 for the evaluated security functionality.
The TOE provides patch management, asset inventory, scripts for IT management and Information Assurance
Vulnerability Alert (IAVA) reporting. These functions combine to provide an IT management solution that
supports efforts to keep all machines up-to-date and protected from vulnerabilities.
Patch management allows for all Windows-based machines and VMware ESXi hypervisors in the network to be
scanned. Once scanned, a report detailing the un-patched software vulnerabilities on the network is generated.
Based on the scan results, schedules may be created to download and deploy missing patches. E-mail alerts
providing patch availability, deployment status, and scan results may be sent to IT personnel to help streamline
processes and ensure each machine is up-to-date. Patch management may be performed with or without
agents.
DXC Security Testing/Certification Laboratories is the CCEF that conducted the evaluation. This evaluation was
completed on 08 June 2017 and was carried out in accordance with the rules of the Canadian Common Criteria
Scheme.
The scope of the evaluation is defined by the security target, which identifies assumptions made during the
evaluation, the intended environment for TOE, and the security functional/assurance requirements. Consumers
are advised to verify that their operating environment is consistent with that specified in the security target, and
to give due consideration to the comments, observations and recommendations in this certification report.
Communications Security Establishment, as the Certification Body, declares that the TOE evaluation meets all
the conditions of the Arrangement on the Recognition of Common Criteria Certificates and that the product will
be listed on the Canadian Certified Products list (CPL) and the Common Criteria portal (the official website of the
International Common Criteria Project).
UNCLASSIFIED
version 1.0 2
1 IDENTIFICATION OF TARGET OF EVALUATION
The Target of Evaluation (TOE) is identified as follows:
Table 1 TOE Identification
TOE Name and Version Shavlik U.S Federal Protect Standard v9.2 Update 3
Developer Ivanti
Conformance Claim EAL 2+ (ALC_FLR.2)
1.1 COMMON CRITERIA CONFORMANCE
The evaluation was conducted using the Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1 Revision 5, for conformance to the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation,
Version 3.1 Revision 5.
1.2 TOE DESCRIPTION
The TOE provides patch management, asset inventory, scripts for IT management and Information Assurance
Vulnerability Alert (IAVA) reporting. These functions combine to provide an IT management solution that
supports efforts to keep all machines up-to-date and protected from vulnerabilities.
Patch management allows for all Windows-based machines and VMware ESXi hypervisors in the network to be
scanned. Once scanned, a report detailing the un-patched software vulnerabilities on the network is generated.
Based on the scan results, schedules may be created to download and deploy missing patches. E-mail alerts
providing patch availability, deployment status, and scan results may be sent to IT personnel to help streamline
processes and ensure each machine is up-to-date. Patch management may be performed with or without
agents.
UNCLASSIFIED
version 1.0 3
1.3 TOE ARCHITECTURE
A diagram of the TOE architecture is as follows:
Figure 1 TOE Architecture
UNCLASSIFIED
version 1.0 4
2 SECURITY POLICY
The TOE implements policies pertaining to the following security functional classes:
• Security Audit;
• User Data Protection;
• Identification and Authentication;
• Security Management;
• Protection of the TSF;
• Resource Utilization; and
• Data Collection.
Complete details of the security functional requirements (SFRs) can be found in the Security Target (ST)
referenced in section 8.2.
UNCLASSIFIED
version 1.0 5
3 ASSUMPTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS OF SCOPE
Consumers of the TOE should consider assumptions about usage and environmental settings as requirements
for the product’s installation and its operating environment. This will ensure the proper and secure operation of
the TOE.
3.1 USAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions are made regarding the use and deployment of the TOE:
• FIPS 140-2 validated cryptographic algorithms in the TOE environment must provide all cryptographic
functionality for the TOE;
• All ports needed for proper operation of the TOE will be opened at the firewall. Also, any firewall
settings necessary for the TOE's operation will be configured to allow the TOE to operate;
• The Protect Console is installed on a server running Windows Server 2012 or Windows Server 2012 R2
that is dedicated to the TOE and its Distribution Server;
• The TOE is located within a controlled access facility;
• There are one or more competent individuals assigned to manage the TOE and the security of the
information it contains;
• The TOE environment provides the network connectivity required to allow the TOE to provide secure
patch management functions;
• The users who manage the TOE are non-hostile, appropriately trained, and follow all guidance;
• The TOE environment is in a secure state and provides a sufficient level of protection to itself and the
TOE components;
• The TOE environment will provide identification and authentication functions for users attempting to
manage and use the TOE;
• The environment provides a sufficient level of protection to secure communications between
Distribution Servers (if deployed), agents (if deployed), and other TOE components; and
• The TOE environment provides the TOE with the necessary reliable timestamps.
UNCLASSIFIED
version 1.0 6
4 EVALUATED CONFIGURATION
The evaluated configuration for the TOE, Shavlik U.S Federal Protect Standard v9.2 Update 3, comprises:
• Protect Console, build number 5119;
• Protect Agent; and
• Protect Deploy Tool Chain (including the Protect Scheduler service).
4.1 DOCUMENTATION
The following documents are provided to the consumer to assist in the configuration and installation of the TOE:
• Shavlik Protect Installation and Setup Guide 9.2;
• Shavlik Protect Upgrade Guide 9.2;
• Shavlik Protect Administration Guide 9.2;
• Shavlik Protect Quick Start Guide 9.2;
• Shavlik Protect Agent Quick Start Guide 9.2;
• Shavlik Protect Virtual Machines Quick Start Guide 9.2;
• Shavlik Protect Best Practices Guide 9.2;
• Shavlik Protect Migration Tool User’s Guide 9.2;
• Shavlik Protect Report Views Guide 9.2;
• Supported Products 9.2 List; and
• U.S. Federal Protect Standard v9.2 Update 3 Guidance Documentation Supplement.
UNCLASSIFIED
version 1.0 7
5 EVALUATION ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES
The evaluation analysis activities involved a structured evaluation of the TOE. Documentation and process
dealing with Development, Guidance Documents, and Life-Cycle Support were evaluated.
5.1 DEVELOPMENT
The evaluators analyzed the documentation provided by the vendor; they determined that the design
completely and accurately describes the TOE security functionality (TSF) interfaces, the TSF subsystems and how
the TSF implements the security functional requirements (SFRs). The evaluators determined that the
initialization process is secure, that the security functions are protected against tamper and bypass, and that
security domains are maintained.
5.2 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
The evaluators examined the TOE preparative user guidance and operational user guidance and determined that
it sufficiently and unambiguously describes how to securely transform the TOE into its evaluated configuration
and how to use and administer the product. The evaluators examined and tested the preparative and
operational guidance, and determined that they are complete and sufficiently detailed to result in a secure
configuration.
Section 4.1 provides details on the guidance documents.
5.3 LIFE-CYCLE SUPPORT
An analysis of the TOE configuration management system and associated documentation was performed. The
evaluators found that the TOE configuration items were clearly marked.
The evaluators examined the delivery documentation and determined that it described all of the procedures
required to maintain the integrity of the TOE during distribution to the consumer.
The evaluators reviewed the flaw remediation procedures used by developer for the TOE. The evaluators
concluded that the procedures are adequate to track and correct security flaws, and distribute the flaw
information and corrections to consumers of the TOE.
UNCLASSIFIED
version 1.0 8
6 TESTING ACTIVITIES
Testing consists of the following three steps: assessing developer tests, performing independent functional tests,
and performing penetration tests.
6.1 ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPER TESTS
The evaluators verified that the developer has met their testing responsibilities by examining their test evidence,
and reviewing their test results, as documented in the ETR. The correspondence between the tests identified in
the developer’s test documentation and the functional specification was complete.
6.2 CONDUCT OF TESTING
The TOE was subjected to a comprehensive suite of formally documented, independent functional and
penetration tests. The detailed testing activities, including configurations, procedures, test cases, expected
results and observed results are documented in a separate Test Results document.
6.3 INDEPENDENT FUNCTIONAL TESTING
During this evaluation, the evaluator developed independent functional tests by examining design and guidance
documentation.
All testing was planned and documented to a sufficient level of detail to allow repeatability of the testing
procedures and results. The following testing activities were performed:
a. Repeat of Developer's Tests: The evaluator repeated a subset of the developers tests;
b. Security Roles: The objective of this test goal is to verify the user role assignments and verify the TOE
identifier;
c. Machine Group: The objective of this test goal is to verify that the TOE properly captures and records
audit information of machines scanned and patched;
d. Start up and shut down: The objective of this test goal is to verify that start up and shut down
operations are properly recorded in the audit file;
e. Access Control: The objective of this test goal is to verify that role based access control performs as
stated;
f. Email Notification and Resource utilization: The objective of this goal verifies the resource utilization
capabilities of the TOE plus the ability to be notified by email;
g. Patch Deployment Roll Back: The objective of this test goal is to verify the TOE’s capabilities for patch
deployment and roll back; and
h. Import and Export: The objective of this test goal is to verify the TOE’s capability of importing and
exporting digitally signed patch files.
UNCLASSIFIED
version 1.0 9
6.3.1 FUNCTIONAL TEST RESULTS
The developer’s tests and the independent functional tests yielded the expected results, providing assurance
that the TOE behaves as specified in its ST and functional specification.
6.4 INDEPENDENT PENETRATION TESTING
Subsequent to the independent review of public domain vulnerability databases and all evaluation deliverables,
limited independent evaluator penetration testing was conducted. The penetration tests focused on:
a. Use of automated vulnerability scanning tools to discover potential network, platform and application
layer vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed, Shellshock, FREAK, POODLE, and GHOST;
b. Agent GUI: The objective of this test goal is to confirm that local administrators are not permitted to
interact with the TSF;
c. Inter TOE Communication: The objective of this test goal is to determine if inter-TOE communication is
appropriately protected; and
d. TOE Self-Test: The objective of this test goal is to verify that the TOE runs a series of self-tests during the
execution of a TOE process.
6.4.1 PENETRATION TEST RESULTS
The independent penetration testing did not uncover any exploitable vulnerabilities in the intended operating
environment.
UNCLASSIFIED
version 1.0 10
7 RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION
This evaluation has provided the basis for the conformance claim documented in Table 1. The overall verdict for
this evaluation is PASS. These results are supported by evidence in the ETR.
The IT product identified in this report has been evaluated at an approved evaluation facility established under
the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme using the Common Methodology for IT Security Evaluation, Version 3.1
Revision 4, for conformance to the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4. These
evaluation results apply only to the specific version and release of the product in its evaluated configuration and
in conjunction with the complete certification report.
The evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Canadian Common Criteria Scheme
and the conclusions of the evaluation facility in the evaluation report are consistent with the evidence adduced.
This is not an endorsement of the IT product by CSE or by any other organization that recognizes or gives effect
to this certificate, and no warranty of the IT product by CSE or by any other organization that recognizes or gives
effect to this certificate, is expressed or implied.
7.1 RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS
It is recommended that all guidance outlined in Section 4.1 be followed to configure the TOE in the evaluated
configuration.
UNCLASSIFIED
version 1.0 11
8 SUPPORTING CONTENT
8.1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
CAVP Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program
CCEF Common Criteria Evaluation Facility
CM Configuration Management
CMVP Cryptographic Module Validation Program
CPL Canadian Certified Products List
CSE Communications Security Establishment
EAL Evaluation Assurance Level
ETR Evaluation Technical Report
FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard
GC Government of Canada
IAVA Information Assurance Vulnerability Alert
IT Information Technology
ITS Information Technology Security
ITSET Information Technology Security Evaluation and Testing
PALCAN Program for the Accreditation of Laboratories – Canada
PP Protection Profile
SFR Security Functional Requirement
ST Security Target
TOE Target of Evaluation
TSF TOE Security Function
UNCLASSIFIED
version 1.0 12
8.2 REFERENCES
Reference
Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 Revision 4, September 2012.
Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation, CEM, Version 3.1 Revision 4,
September 2012.
Shavlik U.S. Federal Protect Standard v9.2 Update 3 Security Target, version 0.3, October 25, 2016
Evaluation Technical Report Shavlik U.S. Federal Protect Standard v9.2 Update 3, version 1.0, June 8, 2017